The Capability Maturity Model® (CMM®) may refer specifically to the Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM) or, more generally, to a number of other process improvement models developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) and registered to Carnegie Mellon University. The SW-CMM was the first model developed by the SEI, and it originally evolved from the need for the United States Department of Defense to have another measure besides “lowest bidder” in determining who should win project bids. Specifically, the Department of Defense desired a method to better compare and distinguish well designed and shoddy, defective products. The two major usages of the SW-CMM are: (1) as a model for Software Process Improvement (SPI) and (2) as a measure of the capability to produce quality systems. Specifically, the CMM may help a purchaser differentiate properly working product from an incomplete, nonfunctioning, poorly designed product by providing information on a producing organization and its production and development procedures.
The CMM is an example of a model-based improvement approach that focuses on creation process quality. The rationale for this focus is that, unlike hardware, manufacturing software is essentially error free (i.e., the production of the disks containing the program), but the quality defects (i.e., bugs) are produced during the concept and development process. Therefore, waiting to identify defects after creation of the product is generally difficult and costly. The CMM may be used as a guideline for prioritizing limited resources on the most important, foundational improvements. In the SW-CMM, Key Process Areas (KPAs) define “building blocks” based on industry best practices. The ultimate goal is to establish “continual improvement” of the software engineering process and the resulting products, kaizen (Statistical Process Control), which is common in nonsoftware engineering disciplines. The CMM is described more fully in Mark C. Paulk, The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process (The SEI Series) (Addison-Wesley Pub Co.) (1995).
The Capability Maturity Model IntegrationSM (CMMISM) was developed to integrate the SW-CMM and various other existing models into a common model. The developers of the CMMI are seeking to establish common terminology between the models, as well as identifying commonality and variability. The SEI is expected to release Version 1.1 of CMMI in the near future.
The SW-CMM model defines five capability levels and identifies Key Process Areas (KPAs). The CMMI model replaces the KPAs with Process Areas (PAs). The lower levels of the CMMI and the related PAs focus mainly on management processes and industry minimal standards. Higher CMMI levels and the related PAs generally focus more on organizational and technical processes. The higher levels and their PAs also strive for “industry-best” practice.
While the entire scope of the CMMI is vast and generally outside the range of this document, the various levels of the CMMI are now quickly described. At level 0 or “Incomplete”, a project has not yet started. Upon initiation and existence of the project, the project is at level 1. At “Initial” or level 1, the product conditions are ad hoc, chaotic, and high-risk. At “Repeatable” or level 2, the project may repeatedly perform some functions with difficulty. Relevant PAs to level 2 are Requirements Management (RM); Project Planning (PP); Project Monitoring and Control (PMC or PC); Supplier Agreement Management (SAM or SM); Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA or QA); Configuration Management (CM); and Measurement and Analysis (MA).
At “Organizationally Defined” or level 3, the relevant PAs include Requirements Development (RD); Technical Solution (TS); Product Integration (PI); Validation (Va); Verification (Ve); Organization Process Focus (OPF or PF); Organizational Process Definition (OPD or PD); Organizational Training (OT); Integrated Project Management (IPM or IM); Risk Management (RSKM or Rk); Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR or DA); Organizational Environment for Integration (OI); and Integrated Teaming (IT).
At “Quantitatively Managed” or level 4, the relevant PAs are Quantitative Process Management (QPM or QM) and Organizational Process Performance (OPP or OP). QPM relates to the informed and correct use of rigorous statistical techniques such as statistical process control (SPC), with the focus on removing specific or attributable causes of variance, and OPP relates to the use of statistical techniques to measure process efficiency. The fifth and highest level, “Optimizing”, is basically equivalent to bottom-up process improvement or continuous improvement. In CMMI, the level 5 PAs are Organizational Innovation and Deployment (OID or ID) and Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR or CA).
The Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM) was the first, but not the only, model for improvement of software development. Some other models developed by the SEI include: Integrated Product Development CMM (IPD-CMM), which was renamed and incorporated into CMMI Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD); People CMM (P-CMM) for Training, Career Development, and Human Resource-related issues; Personal Software ProcessSM (PSPSM); Software Acquisition CMM® (SA-CMM); and Systems Engineering CMM® (SE-CMM), which is being incorporated into CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering. Similarly, FAA-iCMM (a model similar to CMMI and incorporating elements of SW-CMM, SE-CMM, and SA-CMM) was developed by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Achieving higher levels of CMM maturity is a desirable goal in itself because it generally implies that an organization is producing a superior product and services since the higher levels of the CMM generally require the existence of infrastructure and procedures leading to better tested and developed software and other products. As suggested above, organizations also have secondary financial incentives to achieve higher CMM levels, because customers, such as the United States Department of Defense, are increasingly requiring software suppliers to have a sufficiently high CMM level (e.g., at least level 2) before being awarded a contract.
A threshold problem for many organizations is that the requirements for the different maturity levels are relatively complex to understand and implement. It is, therefore, a goal of the present invention to provide a method allowing businesses to achieve higher CMM levels without having to understand the complicated requirements of each level.
Furthermore, the process of achieving higher CMM levels of increased maturity is typically a difficult, expensive, and time-intensive process. While some of the costs are unavoidable, many of the difficulties of achieving higher CMM levels occur because the requirements for the levels do not fit well within the general operations and structure of most organizations. Drastically changing an organization's structure and operations is generally a complex and difficult process. Therefore, another goal of the present invention is to provide a method that simplifies and potentially accelerates the process of modifying an organization's operations and structure to meet the requirements of the higher CMM levels.
Similarly, many organizations also have difficulty implementing changes to achieve higher CMM or CMMI levels because the organization use of these maturity models as merely checklists of criteria. The maturity models, while serving as a measure to assess organizations, offer little guidance to organizations on implementation of the specified criteria. The random implementation of the items on a maturity model checklist results in increased time and cost for maturation in comparison to carrying out systemic changes that may concurrently satisfy multiple checklist items and assist the organization in achieving several checklist items. Furthermore, a piecemeal implementation of the CMM worsens the above-described problems of complexity and cost. It is, therefore, another goal of the present invention to provide a method by which organizations may implement systemic changes to achieve higher levels of CMM maturity.